Just a quick reminder that I’ll be accompanying the silent films Frankenstein and The Impossible Voyage tomorrow, January 10, at 8 PM on Twitch. There will probably be a third film TBA. I hope you’ll be there!
Writing
Plagiarism accusations against Harvard’s president
Taking a principled approach means that sometimes you support a person in one respect while being severely critical in another. I supported Harvard president Claudine Gay when she said that calls for genocide don’t categorically qualify as harassment. But now there’s evidence that she’s a repeat plagiarist, and that demands strong criticism if she is.
Update: Claudine Gay has resigned as president of Harvard University. See also the new paragraph at the end of this post.
Plagiarism consists of using someone else’s words or ideas and passing them off as original work. If you cite the source, it isn’t plagiarism (though it might be a copyright violation if you use too much). Sometimes it’s tricky to identify. Two people can have the same idea independently. Words can stick in your mind, leading you to use them without being aware that you’re lifting them from another author. Sometimes there’s just one good way to say something.
(more…)
What can you do with Steamboat Willie?
What can you do with Steamboat Willie, early in the next year?
I won’t try to write a filk about it just now; answering the question is complicated enough in prose. You may have heard that “Mickey Mouse is going into the public domain,” but that’s true only in a limited sense. The first two released Mickey Mouse cartoons, Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy, will enter the public domain on January 1, 2024, after 95 years. If you’re thinking of creating your own cartoons, drawings, fan fiction, or professional fiction based on them, you can do that legally, but you need to be careful. Mickey Mouse changed significantly over the years, and later versions of him, along with the vast majority of his cartoons, are still under copyright protection. In addition, Mickey Mouse™ remains a Disney trademark. If your work steps over certain bounds, you could hear from Disney’s lawyers.
Duke University’s website has a detailed article on what you can and can’t do. It’s not a substitute for a lawyer’s advice, but it’s a good place to start, and it could be enough if you aren’t creating stuff for profit.
(more…)
They’ve got little lists, and little research
You’ve seen those articles, maybe while trying to look something up. Lists of obscure and remarkable facts. “The strangest vehicles ever made.” “Ten ridiculous laws that are still on the books.” “Eight things you didn’t know about broccoli.” These “listicles,” as the little lists are often called, can be entertaining, but as a rule they’re unreliable information sources. Most are written by freelancers without in-depth knowledge. They repeat popular myths and lack citations. They’re the modern-day descendants of Ripley’s Believe It or Not.
This type of article is easy to skim, and readers who see one with a remarkable claim are apt to share it. This makes it good material for filling out blogs that exist to attract attention to a website. I’ve written some myself and made a strong commitment to getting the facts right. Other writers are more concerned with finishing the piece fast so they can collect their fee and move on to the next assignment. Unless a piece is by an author with relevant expertise or at least on a site that avoids fluff, you shouldn’t treat it as a reliable source.
(more…)
Coping with Chinese disinformation 1
When researching and writing material about China, you have to be aware of the Chinese government’s disinformation efforts. People who speak out against it are apt to be the targets of systematic insults and character assassination. If you’re operating on a small level, you probably won’t be bothered. Even though my articles on boycotting the Chengdu Worldcon did well in the search engines, I’ve received only one clear threat with a Chinese connection.
CNN has reported on “the world’s largest known online disinformation operation”:
The Chinese government has built up the world’s largest known online disinformation operation and is using it to harass US residents, politicians, and businesses—at times threatening its targets with violence. …
The onslaught of attacks – often of a vile and deeply personal nature – is part of a well-organized, increasingly brazen Chinese government intimidation campaign targeting people in the United States, documents show.
The long arm of Chinese censorship
A company that uses a Hong Kong print shop exposes itself to Chinese censorship, no matter where the books will be distributed. Penguin Random House found that out when it had The Penguin New Zealand Anthology printed in Hong Kong. The printing company, not named in the article, told the publisher it couldn’t print the book because it had the words “first Republic of China” and “Taiwanese flag.” The publisher said it used the Hong Kong printer because of special format requirements that no one in Australia or New Zealand could meet.
By Chinese law, Taiwan does not exist as an independent nation, and saying otherwise is forbidden.
The book was printed with the offending words redacted. Any company that cares about a free press should not use a printer that has to bow to China’s government.
The craft of children’s books
I just learned that my friend Debbie Ohi, a writer and illustrator of children’s books, has a Substack. Even though I never plan to write a children’s book, I was fascinated by her article on understanding picture book format and construction. I’d never realized there were such strict page requirements. If you’re thinking of getting into this field or know someone who is, you should find her articles very interesting.
What is a “conspiracy theory”?
A conspiracy theory, according to Merriam-Webster, is “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.” Alternatively, it’s “a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public”; the idea presumably is that insiders have conspired to keep the truth hidden.
Dictionary.com takes a similar approach: “a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot” or “a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group.” In all these cases, a conspiracy theory requires a conspiracy to make something happen or to keep something hidden. The cabal has to be hidden and the conspirators powerful; an accusation that some people got together to plan a crime doesn’t count as a conspiracy theory unless the perpetrators are extremely rich or powerful.
(more…)
Choosing your usage battles
Words have specific meanings. Words change. These are both true.
If people start using a word in a way that doesn’t match its established meanings, how should you react? You can say it’s wrong, but eventually it could become so well-established that fighting it is senseless. Sometimes people need a word for a new concept and appropriate an existing one because it’s a good analogy. When vehicles pushed through the air by motors were developed, they needed a name, and people called them “airships” even though they aren’t ships in the usual sense. Before the end of the 19th century, “spaceship” was coined by a similar process.
At the other end, words sometimes get new meanings for stupid or dishonest reasons. For instance, people of certain political persuasions call anyone they disagree with a “fascist,” without reference to the word’s actual, historical meaning. That’s just a smear tactic, and anyone who values precise communication should reject it. “Grooming” is another example of a word that should have a definite meaning but has turned into an undefined smear.
(more…)
303 Creative LLC: A win for free expression from SCOTUS 2
The first article I came across on the Supreme Court’s 303 Creative LLC decision was an outright lie, claiming the Court had ruled businesses can now refuse service to same-sex couples. Creating panic is what a lot of news sites do best, and lots of people on social media are helping to spread the misinformation. What it actually ruled was this:
The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado
seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the
past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they
thought vital at the time. But abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all will encounter ideas that are “misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. Consistent with the First Amendment, the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment.